If we listen to people today concerning the subject of evolution you would think that scientists and scholars have definitively proven that this universe created itself and life arose from non-life. The facts however, prove otherwise and in this article we look at what some of the various scholastic disciplines actually have to say about the origin of life.

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky has written:

The theory of evolution is a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor. Evolutionists treat their cherished theory like a fragile object of veneration and worship, and so it is. Panic is a sure sign of intellectual insecurity, and evolutionists have every reason to be insecure, for their theory is falling apart.

The latest evidence of this panic comes in a controversy that followed a highly specialized article published in an even more specialized scientific journal. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, wrote an article accepted for publication in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington…soon after Dr. Meyer’s article appeared, the self-appointed protectors of Darwinism went into full apoplexy.

Internet websites and scientific newsletters came alive with outrage and embarrassment, for Dr. Meyer’s article suggested that evolution just might not be the best explanation for the development of life forms. The ensuing controversy was greater than might be expected if Dr. Meyer had argued that the world is flat or that hot is cold. (Online source)

God’s Truth Is Known By All

The time has come for the Church of Jesus Christ in America to boldly take up the Bible, the actual Word of the one true and living God, and to boldly tell people what the Creator Himself has said about the way mankind should live. With this is mind we now turn to Paul’s letter to the churches in Rome, written around the early spring of A.D. 57, and which we know today as the Book of Romans. Almost two-thousand years ago, God the Holy Spirit inspired His Apostle to write this great Book of Scripture which speaks so mightily to the these troubled times we now find ourselves living in.

Romans 1:18–19 – The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

You’ll notice in verse 18 – the wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness – [and rebellion] – of men who suppress the truth. In this verse the original Greek for suppress means “holding down” the truth–as it is a conscious decision–and a willful effort by these people in God’s sight. Dr. Everett Harrison brings out the key point:

They “suppress the truth by their wickedness.” R.C.H. Lenski observes, “Whenever the truth starts to exert itself and makes them feel uneasy in their moral nature, they hold it down, suppress it. Some drown its voice by rushing into their immoralities; others strangle the disturbing voice by argument and by denial” (The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1945])… Suppression of the truth implies knowledge of the truth,… (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, CD Rom).

Now here’s why–verse 19 – since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. That’s why, no matter what culture you go to, you will invariably find some type of religious worship.

Is It Reasonable to “Hold Down” The Truth?

The idea in this forum is to take the theory of evolution to “school” by giving you the benefit of seeing expert opinions on the subject for yourself. Unfortunately; the promoters of this godless religion, have been quite successful in selling the idea to the average person–in no small way through relentless indoctrination in the public schools–that somehow science; archaeology; and philosophy have long ago proven that there are no such things as miracles, or the supernatural, that the Bible is only mythology, and in this so-called “scientific age,” there is no need for a God.

This has largely been achieved through a philosophy known as naturalism, which forms the basis for nearly all of our public schools, institutes of higher learning, and sciences, increasingly more seminaries–particularly those of mainline denominations–although even “conservative” Evangelical seminaries are hugely affected. Very simply, naturalism states, that for every phenomenon that happens, there is only a natural explanation, because the possibility of the supernatural is just ruled out a priori.

Dr. Ron Carlson, president of Christian Ministries International, has revealed that when he went to college he purposely took every course he could “that was designed to destroy the Christian faith.” His reason was that if the Christian faith was true and reasonable then it would stand up to that test. It is; it did, and Carlson is right when tells us how the belief in naturalism was the logical outgrowth of the philosophy of humanism, with its innate desire to suppress and “push the truth away” concerning the existence of God, even though the Lord has made it plain to them:

Secular humanism is based on the presupposition that there is no God. Now, it’s interesting that the 19th and 20th century philosophers and scientists have never disproved the existence of God. Instead, what they have done; and this is very important to understand, is to arbitrarily set up a definition of science so small that God just doesn’t fit. The humanistic philosophers of the 19th century who said there is no God simply devised a philosophy, which is known as naturalism. And they drew a little box, a box [they] called “our empirical world of science” – [or the world of our senses].

Now science, as you know, is based upon two things, observation and experimentation of a real world of repeatable units. In naturalism the scientists and philosophers said that the only things that can exist, [are those things] we find in our little three dimensional box time and space. Then, since we cannot observe God, or experiment with Him, and since we can’t put Him in a test tube, or in an algebraic formula–so they reasoned–therefore, God doesn’t exist.

There’s no scientific evidence analyzed here, this is simply a philosophical decision to reject the supernatural, and to suppress the truth, just as that ancient Hebrew prophet named Paul predicted these people would nearly two thousand years ago! And this is definitely not science! Even using one of modern mankind’s own “sacred cows” – the study of philosophy–this is a fallacy in reasoning known as “begging the question.”

This type of circular reasoning is defined as assuming the truth of your argument, not by evidence, or argumentation and logic, but simply because it’s what you already believe! These people do not reject belief in God because of the scientific evidence, no, the truth is that they reject Him simply because this is what they already want to do anyway! Remember now, Romans 1:18 – For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (NASB).

Science Isn’t So Unbiased After All

Paul Taylor, of the Christian Answers Network, points out just how it is that evolutionary scientists, despite the actual scientific evidence, are able to make it look as though they’ve solved the mysteries of life apart from God:

There are three common misconceptions about scientists: (a) Scientists are objective, (b) Scientists are unbiased, and (c) Science is infallible…[but] Scientists are emotional human beings who carry with them a generous subjectivity into the supposedly objective search for the truth.

Dr. Henry Morris, a scientist, and a Christian, founder of the Institute For Creation Research, puts it this way:

Scientists like to project an image, for public consumption and admiration, [that they are] detached [from their search] for truth, and will follow that search by the evidence alone. Yet that search for truth seems to stop abruptly whenever it begins to lead in the direction of supernatural creation, and the vaunted objectivity of scientists quickly deteriorates into irate emotionalism whenever evolution is questioned on scientific grounds. If evolutionary scientists are going to continue to insist that science is pure naturalism, then they ought to be honest enough to admit that such a position–[when based solely on the actual scientific evidence]–requires at least as much faith as that of the Bible-believing creationist.

Do you still need further proof that these so-called “learned men” of science–despite their public posturing to the contrary–know that evolution isn’t true, and yet, still “push away”, and “hold down” the truth of God’s existence and His being the Creator? Then consider this, from longtime professor of Biology at Harvard, Dr. George Wald, a preeminent scientist of his day–even winning the 1967 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine–as well as many other honors, who spoke very candidly in an article in Scientific American.

The distinguished Dr. Wald, an avowed evolutionist, describes Louis Pasteur’s famous experiments with spontaneous generation, and then says, “When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief in spontaneous generation.” This is confirmed by Dr. Morris in his classic book, The Biblical Basis For Modern Science – “through a series of carefully planned and executed experiments, the great chemist/biologist Louis Pasteur demonstrated once and for all that spontaneous generation does not occur, and the doctrine of ‘biogenesis’ (life only [comes] from life) became the reigning doctrine of biology.” Which it remains to this very day.

Dr. Wald continues:

[Until Pasteur’s experiments] the reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of a supernatural creation [by God]. There is no third position. For this reason scientists…chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a ‘philosophical necessity’… Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis – yet [because they are] unwilling to accept the [only] alternative [the] belief in [God and] special creation, they are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through an hypothesis of spontaneous generation… One has only to contemplate the magnitude of the task to concede that the spontaneous generation [from non-life to] a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.

What Do The Experts Really Say?

By the way, in case you are wondering: But isn’t that just the way scientists felt in the middle of this past century? No it isn’t; in 2005 Antony Flew, one of the foremost philosophers of our day has abandoned naturalism in favor of the religion of deism. After contemplating arguments for Intelligent Design for the past few years, Flew finally succumbed to the many evidences for the existence of God marshaled by Christian apologists.

In 2003, sociologist Rodney Stark, who does not consider himself an evolutionist or a believer in God, but rather a scholar in pursuit of truth, presented strong evidence in his book For the Glory of God that Darwinists have been covering up the many holes in there prized theory. Stark says that evolution “has primarily been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science in an effort to refute all religious claims concerning a creator–an effort that has also attempted to suppress all scientific criticisms of Darwin’s work.”

Recently Dr. Arno Penzias, who shared the Nobel Prize in physics for the discovery of background radiation, remarked: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and, one which has an underlying (one might say, ‘supernatural’) plan.

And finally, Dr. Robert Griffiths, who won the Heinemann Prize in mathematical physics, observed, “If we need an atheist for a debate I’d go to the philosophy department; the physics department isn’t much use.”

That’s because the great British astronomer and mathematician of Cambridge University, Sir Fred Hoyle, put the origin of first life in proper perspective when he calculated the probability of non-life becoming life by random chance. Here is what Hoyle said: “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter [stuff that is not alive] is one to a number with 40,000 zeroes behind it… It’s [a number plenty] big enough to bury the whole theory of evolution.”

And then Hoyle’s associate Chandra Wickramasinghe said: “believing that life arose by pure chance is like believing that a Boeing 747 arose by a tornado blowing through a junkyard.”

The “Shell” Game Of Dating Methods

Well, so far we’ve seen that the Biology, Philosophy, Sociology, Physics, Math and Astronomy Departments aren’t any help with this theory of evolution–so how about the Geology Department? Perhaps we’ll find some assistance there: What about the alleged great ages of the universe, and the earth’s strata that we are always hearing about? Surely the evidence here must be conclusive.

Dr. Carlson, whom I mentioned earlier, tells us about dating methods:

There are a variety of methods. You have Carbon 14 dating, which is good back to a maximum of 20,000 years – it has great fluctuation at that. [In fact, it has dated live snails at 10,000 years old–which is a little hard to swallow]. Then you have Argon Potassium 25, which goes back to an estimate of 100,000 years, and it is also based on an assumption that things react to our atmosphere now, the same way they always have, and that cannot be established.

But when you get back into the [supposed] millions of years, the only way you can date something that old is by the geological strata. So as these paleontologists dig down through the layers of the earth, they date the fossils by the age of the strata in which they are found. Now, the thinking person is going to ask: Well; how do they know the age of the layer of the earth in the first place? They date the strata by the age of the fossils they find in it. The first time I heard this I thought my professor was kidding! Until I began to research this and I discovered that in paleontology they are caught in the fallacy of circular reasoning; I kid you not! They date the fossil by the strata, and they date the strata by the fossil–you can date anything any way you want to using this method! And believe me; they do!

Dr. Carlson is proved correct by the secular source The World Book Encyclopedia, where in one volume under fossils it says: “Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rock in which they lie.” However, in another volume of the same encyclopedia set under strata we read: “Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of Geology. The age of the rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.”

Wait a minute; first we’re told the rocks date the fossils, and then they turn around and tell us that it’s the fossils that date the rocks! At the risk of offending those who put so much faith in the power of human reason, this clearly violates the laws of logic. Dr. Carlson is quite right; this is the fallacy of “circular reasoning” – also known as begging the question–which we discussed earlier.

What About The Fossil Record?

Ok; so, maybe those sciences can’t help prove the theory of evolution, but surely the Departments of Archeology and Paleontology can help! Without a doubt the fossil record is strong evidence of Darwin’s theory–isn’t it? Well, sorry about that Charlie, the absolute truth is there’s no help for the evolutionist here either.

Luther Sunderland, author of Darwin’s Enigma, and a former aerospace engineer, wrote Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, who authored the textbook on evolution there, and asked him why, with a Museum of 7 million fossils, he didn’t put even one photo of a transitional form in his book?
Here is what Dr. Patterson replied:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book… If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly put them in my book… I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one might make a water-tight argument.”

Surely now with billions upon billions of organisms that would have lived on this earth, during the billions and billions of years this earth is said to have existed–you would think that there would at least be one fossil that clearly showed at least one organism in a transitional form!

But the truth is, that evolutionists have been lying to us all along about the fossil record, and the so-called impressive evidence that allows this theory to be taught in schools as fact to our impressionable young people. And even Darwin himself knew the fossil record contradicted his theory!

Here, in fact, is what Charles Darwin himself said:

Innumerable transitional forms must have existed. But why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth… Why is not every geological formation in every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such [thing], and this perhaps is the greatest objection, which can be urged against my theory.

Yeah, no kidding! A few questions immediately spring to my mind: If so, then why is this theory of evolution still being taught as a fact? Why aren’t Christians up in arms about this travesty seeking to protect their children? And where are the Christians who are filing lawsuits to have this nonsense thrown out of public schools–or at the very least insisting on equal time for creation?

Evolution–A “Fact” Without A Cause

What are we to conclude from all of this? Secular humanists proudly boast in their creed The Humanist Manifesto II that, “the theory of evolution is supported impressively by the findings of many sciences, and the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of the evidence that it is difficult to reject it.”

Well, I don’t know about you; but I didn’t see a shred of evidence–let alone impressive evidence. And I find little difficulty in soundly rejecting evolution on scientific and philosophical grounds.

As a matter of fact, I find myself in complete agreement Professor Louis Bounoure, director of France’s Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg said – “Evolution is a fairy-tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”

One can’t help wondering, if that’s how our friend Dr. Patterson felt by the time he was speaking at the American Museum of Natural History. Patterson asked his colleagues:

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminary in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing–it ought not be taught in high school.”

And to that let me add a hearty, amen! One can’t help but have a little empathy for Dr. Patterson, who would then go on to say – “I’ve studied evolution for 18 years; and know nothing from it.” At least he is honest enough to admit it.

God Has Scientists Too

You need to understand that most of the men I have quoted here regarding the subject of evolution are themselves evolutionists, who all but admit that this insidious theory is not true! And to continue to teach this theory as fact is to lie to the unsuspecting public! I wish you to know that I am not saying that these men deliberately mislead this nation’s institutes of higher learning, as I cannot judge their hearts, but we have seen from the Book of Romans that God says these men–who bow to worship at the altar of human wisdom–and who suppress the truth are at the very east, lying to themselves.

And from the clearly biased liberal media you would get the idea that all scientists agree with evolution, but this is absolutely not so! Here are just a few of the thousands of scientists, all innovators in their fields, who were believers of the Bible–the founder of astronomy, Johann Kepler; biologist Louis Pasteur; the highly esteemed William Thompson–also known as Lord Kelvin–who pioneered in thermodynamics; and, perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, Sir Isaac Newton.

And, as Dr. Morris rightly points out:

[These men], and a host of others–[equally as distinguished in their own field of science]–were men who firmly believed in special creation and the personal [all-powerful] God [Who created this universe], as well as believing in the Bible as the inspired Word of [the one true] God and in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Their great contributions in science were made with [total] confidence that they were merely “thinking God’s thoughts after Him,” and that they were doing His will and glorifying His name in doing so.

Let Us Come To Our Senses

So does all this prove that God created the universe, and that the Bible is true? No; but we have seen here, that the humanist scientist–who so loudly proclaims that theory of evolution is a fact–really hasn’t got a clue as to how this universe began, or, how the first life-forms happened in the first place. And, if all you have are “theories” about how these things came to be, then it logically follows that you are not dealing with the fact of evolution at all. The question then becomes: How can you have a “fact” when you clearly don’t know how it happened?

As we close our look at Taking Evolution To School, let me share this with you from former evolutionist, Dr. Gary Parker, a professor of biology, who tells of a television show he saw while in Canada. Dr. Parker remembers:

As the credits began to fade away the camera showed a medieval princess walking in a castle garden, and you could tell she was looking for something very special. The music begins to play softly, and then the camera slowly swings over to the edge of a little pond where a frog is sitting. As the princess hears the sound of the frog she moves over to the edge of the pond. She then bends down and kisses the frog, and stars sparkle all over the screen! And from out of the stars steps this handsome prince. And, as the prince and the princess engage in an embrace, the narrator of the program walks into this idyllic scene and says: “If you believe a frog turned into a prince instantly, that’s a fairy tale. If you believe it took 300 million years–that’s evolution!”

This is offered as an appeal for you to awaken from the fairytale of evolution, as I commend to your attention–the Book to end all fables. And I urge you to consider the Book that has the ultimate happy ending–eternal life through Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God. That Book, is the Bible, and it has stood the test of time.

See also:


Creation: Believe it or Not–Part 1, by Dr. John MacArthur

Creation: Believe it or Not–Part 2, by Dr. John MacArthur